Creation vs. Evolution

[MichaelCadry]

No big deal, Mike. I was just responding with what you asked for, not particularly expecting you to respond back.

Dear DavisBJ,

Good. I am thankful for that. As you might notice, I'm not doing much with this thread lately. Am taking a break for a while. After my radiation treatments are over, maybe I'll post more. They will be done on this Thursday. See what happens.

To Him Who Says God Doesn't Exist!!

Michael

 

[DavisBJ]

I wrote and posted this before...Richard Dawkins has a history of promoting evolution, but using ideas that have conclusively proven incorrect (Such as his 'backward wired eye' argument). Another example... He was asked "Out of all the evidence used to support the theory of evolution, what would you say is the strongest, most irrefutable single piece of evidence in support of the theory?"
Watch Dawkins answer... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5PlqNoCAIgA

The problem with the answer is that either Dawkins is outright fibbing...or he is years behind on genetic research. He claims that we never see contradictions in genetic data of the family trees he describes. The truth is that genes contradict each other all the time. For example, here is research showing some genes that show human and armadillo most closely related.. other genes contradict that saying human and elephant are most closely related. And then a third set of genes said that armadillo and elepheant were the closest.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2675975/figure/F2/

There are many other articles in peer reviewed journals showing that Dawkins strongest argument in favour of evolution is false...Other articles:
1. Gene tree discordance, phylogenetic inference and the multispecies coalescent …

6days, I note that only a few hours ago you were dissing Dawkins by saying “he writes on many topics outside his field of expertise.” But it appears, according to gcthomas, that in Biology you just demonstrated that you are either incompetent, dishonest, or unwilling to restrain yourself from “writing on topics outside your field of expertise.” Which was it – was your blunder on genes due to your incompetence, or due to blatant dishonesty, or once again, hypocrisy?

 

[DavisBJ]

it is folly to think it is useless because of common ancestry beliefs ...

6days is clearly not willing to answer the question I posed about how he would report the results of a study of the appendix. If I were a creationist with a deep faith and trust in the Bible, and I were the one doing the study 6days is dodging, I would, in essence, report on the tests I had run, the techniques I used, any numerical data I gathered, and conclude (in medical jargon), that I had been unable to identify any specific useful function the appendix performed in the human body. I would have no need to say anything about evolution at all, but I would be expected to be clear and honest in telling what I had found.

But if I were a believer in evolution, and performing the same study, my obligation then would be to - - - - report exactly the same thing that I would report if I were a strong Bible believer. As 6days so often asserts, the facts don’t change. Early conclusions about the appendix not performing any function were not predicated on evolution being true.

Humans did not evolve. We were created in the image of the Creator God (Genesis 1:27). Our sin brought death to this world, and the creation groans under the effects of sin to this day (Romans 8:20–22). But there is a remedy...our Creator, Jesus Christ

6days is welcome to these beliefs. He is welcome to preach them in church, and to pattern his life around them. But they have no place in science.

 

[TheDuke]

Now 6d,

I'd like to join Thomas and Davis in showing you for what you really are.

The problem with the answer is that either Dawkins is outright fibbing...or he is years behind on genetic research. He claims that we never see contradictions in genetic data of the family trees he describes.

It is indeed interesting that a mathematical parsimony of the DNA of extant organisms, of the mitochondrial DNA, of the ERV's DNA markers and cladistic methods all seem to line up almost perfectly. If that's not convincing, I don't know what is.....

The truth is that genes contradict each other all the time. For example, here is research showing some genes that show human and armadillo most closely related.. other genes contradict that saying human and elephant are most closely related. And then a third set of genes said that armadillo and elepheant were the closest.

Well obviously, you either didn't read the paper or are too stupid to comprehend what it is about.

1. Gene tree discordance, phylogenetic inference and the multispecies coalescent

Link broken.

2. "Ancestral successive hybridization events and/or incomplete lineage sorting associated with short speciation intervals are viable explanations for the mosaic retroposon insertion patterns of recent placental mammals and for the futile search for a clear root dichotomy."
3. Large-Scale Taxonomic Profiling of Eukaryotic Model Organisms: A Comparison of Orthologous Proteins Encoded by the Human, Fly, Nematode, and Yeast Genomes

So it seems that you can't distinguish between the study of advanced topics and the basics.
The first paper deals with the question of when the placental mammalian lineage diverged, which is clearly proving to be a challenge. Your laughable conclusion that this paper (where you mined the image from) analyses the relative genetic distance between humans and elephants further underscores you ineptitude.
The second one deals with some of the typical model organisms and looks into a selection of similar proteins. It was a very interesting read and I'm grateful that you provided me with this opportunity. The fact that using a handful of loci in the construction of large-scale phylograms is prone to error is nothing new and has been known for decades.
You seem to think that somehow the very people who figured it out would be unaware of it. If this absurdity doesn't prompt you to rethink your strategy, all hope is lost.

 

[Jose Fly]

False. You are preaching religion - not science.

??????????? What are you denying? That you claimed common ancestry doesn't contribute to science? That you previously posted a paper about the discovery that some pseudogenes evolved a new function? That the paper included a section about how evolutionary common ancestry was what produced the results?

Exactly which one of those things are you saying is false, and is "religion not science"?

Science over the past number of years has been showing that the word 'psuedogenes' is often a misnomer.

So you don't deny that part.

And again you cite "science shows...." as a means of determining reality. Yet by the exact same means (science), we can also say that young-earth creationism is completely wrong.

And,*"hIghly conserved sequences" are expected in the Biblical creation model as a design element.*

They are? Why? And if so, why were these discoveries made via the framework of evolutionary common ancestry instead of under the "Biblical creation model" (whatever that is)?

OK... lets review but there are many articles and you can easily google to find information such as...."The body's appendix has long been thought of as nothing more than a worthless evolutionary artifact, good for nothing save a potentially lethal case of inflammation.

Now researchers suggest the appendix is a lot more than a useless remnant. Not only was it recently proposed to actually possess a critical function, but scientists now find it appears in nature a lot more often than before thought.
http://m.livescience.com/10571-appendix-fact-promising.html *

Exactly. The "it appears in nature a lot more often than before thought" is the key part here. Now why would the discovery that the appendix is common in non-human species be relevant to whether the human appendix is functional? Well, the very article you linked to says it pretty clearly....

Several living species, including several lemurs, certain rodents and the scaly-tailed flying squirrel, still have an appendix attached to a large cecum, which is used in digestion. Darwin had thought appendices appeared in only a small handful of animals.

"We're not saying that Darwin's idea of evolution is wrong — that would be absurd, as we're using his ideas on evolution to do this work," ​

IOW, just like with the pseudogenes, this discovery only came about via the understanding of our evolutionary relatedness to other organisms.

Evolutionists thought the appendix was useless...yet they now have to believe it is so important that it evolved indepently 32 times. 38? 50?

Some scientists thought that way, others didn't. Now, thanks to our knowledge of evolutionary common descent, we have a better understanding.

Good thing we have science to show the evolutionary assumptions were false.

This is just bizarre. You cite two examples of evolutionary common descent directly leading to new knowledge and understanding, and try and claim them as evidence against evolution?

You really are desperate to maintain your talking points no matter what, aren't you?

Evolutionism has never contributed to a single new technology nor medical advancement.

Here's what I predict. Eventually you will drop out of this exchange and leave all these questions and issues on the table. Then in another thread or later in this one, you will once again repeat the above talking point, as if none of this had ever taken place and with no apparent memory of the fact that the examples you cite are actually examples of evolutionary common descent directly contributing to science. Then, most likely when I or someone else reminds you of this, you will claim that you've "already answered", "that has been disproved", or some variation of that but of course not bothering to link to this exchange or say what took place.

 

[Jose Fly]

I only clicked on one of your links and it turns out you lied about it. The article you cite here isn't even about genes.

If you don't know what a gene is, then where are you cribbing your pseudo-arguments from? You are obviously not working them out yourself.

Oh wow....it's even right there in the first sentence! I think 6days is getting more than a little desperate.

 

[Jose Fly]

So it seems that you can't distinguish between the study of advanced topics and the basics.
The first paper deals with the question of when the placental mammalian lineage diverged, which is clearly proving to be a challenge. Your laughable conclusion that this paper (where you mined the image from) analyses the relative genetic distance between humans and elephants further underscores you ineptitude.
The second one deals with some of the typical model organisms and looks into a selection of similar proteins. It was a very interesting read and I'm grateful that you provided me with this opportunity. The fact that using a handful of loci in the construction of large-scale phylograms is prone to error is nothing new and has been known for decades.
You seem to think that somehow the very people who figured it out would be unaware of it. If this absurdity doesn't prompt you to rethink your strategy, all hope is lost.

His argument seems to boil down to "They've had to tweak their phylogenies over the years, therefore evolutionary biology is false!"

Bizarre.

 

[Jonahdog]

His argument seems to boil down to "They've had to tweak their phylogenies over the years, therefore evolutionary biology is false!"

Bizarre.

That goes back to: "Science changes, the Bible does not, therefore Goddidit".

 

[6days]

6days, I note that only a few hours ago you were dissing Dawkins by saying “he writes on many topics outside his field of expertise.”

True... part of what I said..."*Dawkins is a great author. But...he writes on many topics outside of his field of expertise also. He often uses fallacious arguments and we can discuss examples if you wish.


But my claim was that he has been ridiculed for being a coward, often picking easy targets to debate.
Example of a fellow atheist calling Dawkins out...."Dr Daniel Came, a philosophy lecturer and fellow atheist..."

*But it appears, according to gcthomas, that in Biology you just demonstrated that you are either incompetent, dishonest, or unwilling to restrain yourself from “writing on topics outside your field of expertise.”

Well.... perhaps I'm like Dawkins who is unwilling to restrain himself from “writing on topics outside (his) field of expertise.” . Although, I don't intentionally mis-state things as Dawkins seems to.

Or.... perhaps GC misrepresented things a wee bit.*
Here is what i said....
"Richard Dawkins has a history of promoting evolution, but using ideas that have conclusively proven incorrect (Such as his 'backward wired eye' argument). Another example... He was asked "Out of all the evidence used to support the theory of evolution, what would you say is the strongest, most irrefutable single piece of evidence in support of the theory?"*
Watch Dawkins answer...*http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5PlqNoCAIgA*

The problem with the answer is that either Dawkins is outright fibbing...or he is years behind on genetic research. He claims that we never see contradictions in genetic data of the family trees he describes. The truth is that genes contradict each other all the time. For example, here is research showing some genes that show human and armadillo most closely related.. other genes contradict that saying human and elephant are most closely related. And then a third set of genes said that armadillo and elepheant were the closest.*
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/arti...975/figure/F2/* "*

GC is correct in that this article does not mention "genes" but is looking at phylogentic sequences / chromosonal similarities..

Dawkins however was completely wrong. The next link i provided in that post also contradicts Dawkins claim. Reminder...Dawkins says we*never see contradictions in genetic data of the family trees. However.....
There are many other articles in peer reviewed journals showing that Dawkins strongest argument in favour of evolution is false...Other articles:*
1. Gene tree discordance, phylogenetic inference and the multispecies coalescent*
http://hymenoptera.tamu.edu/courses/...nberg_2009.pdf*
"... conflicting genealogical histories often exist in different genes throughout the genome."*
2. Mosaic retroposon insertion patterns in placental mammals*
http://genome.cshlp.org/content/19/5/868.abstract*
"Ancestral successive hybridization events and/or incomplete lineage sorting associated with short speciation intervals are viable explanations for the mosaic retroposon insertion patterns of recent placental mammals and for the futile search for a clear root dichotomy."*
3. Large-Scale Taxonomic Profiling of Eukaryotic Model Organisms: A Comparison of Orthologous Proteins Encoded by the Human, Fly, Nematode, and Yeast Genomes*
http://genome.cshlp.org/content/8/6/590.short

 

[6days]

6days is clearly not willing to answer the question I posed about how he would report the results of a study of the appendix. If I were a creationist with a deep faith and trust in the Bible, and I were the one doing the study 6days is dodging, I would, in essence, report on the tests I had run, the techniques I used, any numerical data I gathered, and conclude (in medical jargon), that I had been unable to identify any specific useful function the appendix performed in the human body. I would have no need to say anything about evolution at all, but I would be expected to be clear and honest in telling what I had found.

Very good. That is essentially what I answered. I said "...it was always possible that there was design, purpose, and function not yet discovered. Another possibility was that the appendix had lost function from its original design.".*

But if I were a believer in evolution, and performing the same study, my obligation then would be to - - - - report exactly the same thing that I would report if I were a strong Bible believer. As 6days so often asserts, the facts don’t change. Early conclusions about the appendix not performing any function were not predicated on evolution being true.

*
Not really true Davis. The appendix was listed as useless and used as an evidence of common ancestry....and used as a evidence of the *evolutionary prediction on vestigial organs.*

Do you think that if *"useless" and "poor design" is evidence for evoltion, that 'functional' and 'optimal design' is evidence for our Creator?

Humans did not evolve. We were created in the image of the Creator God (Genesis 1:27). Our sin brought death to this world, and the creation groans under the effects of sin to this day (Romans 8:20–22). But there is a remedy...our Creator, Jesus Christ

 

[6days]

*False. You are preaching religion - not science.

Exactly which one of those things are you saying is false, and is "religion not science"?*

You again confuse your beliefs and your intetpretations as science. My comment above was in response to your belief that common ancestry beliefs have contributed to science. The opposite is true. Evolutionism has harmed people and hindered scientific progress.*

Evolutionist and anticreationist, Larru*Witham wrote 'Where Darwin Meets the Bible'. He says, "Surprisingly, however, the most notable aspect of natural scientists in assembly is how little they focus on evolution. Its day-to-day irrelevance is a great ‘paradox’ in biology, according to a BioEssays special issue on evolution in 2000. ‘While the great majority of biologists would probably agree with Theodosius Dobzhansky’s dictum that “Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution”, most can conduct their work quite happily without particular reference to evolutionary ideas”, the editor wrote. “Evolution would appear to be the indispensable unifying idea and, at the same time, a highly superfluous one.” The annual programs of science conventions also tell the story. When the zoologists met in 1995 (and changed their name to the Society for Integrative and Comparative Biology), just a few dozen of the 400 academic papers read were on evolution. The North American Paleontological Convention of 1996 featured 430 papers, but only a few included the word ‘evolution’ in their titles. The 1998 AAS meeting organised 150 scientific sessions, but just 5 focused on evolution—as it relates to biotechnology, the classification of species, language, race and primate families.”

 

[6days]

His argument seems to boil down to "They've had to tweak their phylogenies over the years, therefore evolutionary biology is false!"

Bizarre.

Tweak??? More like chop down.
In 2009, the cover of New Scientist says "Darwin was Wrong...cutting down the tree of life"
The latest research shows Darwins tree is collapsing.

One of the scientists interviewed in that article W.F.Doolittle was also published in Scientific American (Feb 2000) saying the imagined tree of life is a tangled mess.

There is no tree of life. hundreds of different imaginary trees are in textbooks and journals all based on a belief system and similarities

 

[6days]

Science over the past number of years has been showing that the word 'psuedogenes' is often a misnomer.

So you don't deny that part.

Evolutionists wish they could deny it...

Psuedogenes joins the long list of vanishing proofs and disappointments for evolutionists. In 1998 Richard Dawkins said,
"Genomes are littered with nonfunctional pseudogenes, faulty duplicates of functional genes that do nothing, while their functional cousins (the word doesn't even need scare quotes) get on with their business in a different part of the same genome. And there's lots more DNA that doesn't even deserve the name pseudogene. It, too, is derived by duplication, but not duplication of functional genes. It consists of multiple copies of junk, "tandem repeats", and other nonsense which may be useful for forensic detectives but which doesn't seem to be used in the body itself. Once again, creationists might spend some earnest time speculating on why the Creator should bother to litter genomes with untranslated pseudogenes and junk tandem repeat DNA."
,
Other prominjent evolutionists such as Francis Collins and Karl Giberson said that it is "not remotely plausible" that "God inserted a piece of broken DNA into our genomes."

However, over the past few years evolutionists have started shying way from using junk DNA as a proof and now they are losing pseudogenes. In the science journal RNA, a new article says:
"Pseudogenes have long been labeled as "junk" DNA, failed copies of genes that arise during the evolution of genomes. However, recent results are challenging this moniker; indeed, some pseudogenes appear to harbor the potential to regulate their protein-coding cousins. Far from being silent relics, many pseudogenes are transcribed into RNA, some exhibiting a tissue-specific pattern of activation. Pseudogene transcripts can be processed into short interfering RNAs that regulate coding genes through the RNAi pathway. In another remarkable discovery, it has been shown that pseudogenes are capable of regulating tumor suppressors and oncogenes by acting as microRNA decoys. The finding that pseudogenes are often deregulated during cancer progression warrants further investigation into the true extent of pseudogene function. In this review, we describe the ways in which pseudogenes exert their effect on coding genes and explore the role of pseudogenes in the increasingly complex web of noncoding RNA that contributes to normal cellular regulation"

The article closes with warning similar to what creationists have been saying for years not to assume that pseudogenes are "nonfunctional relics"because that has caused them to be "overlooked in the quest to understand the biology of health and disease":RNA, Vol. 17:792-798 (2011).

Evolutionary assumptions about pseudogenes is another example of the belief system hindering science. The belief in "nonfunctional relics" caused them to be "overlooked in the quest to understand the biology of health and disease"

 

[6days]

Evolutionism has never contributed to a single new technology nor medical advancement.

Here's what I predict. Eventually you will drop out of this exchange and leave all these questions and issues on the table.

Oh my.... yet another failed prediction. :devil:

 

[DavisBJ]

... The appendix was listed as useless and used as an evidence of common ancestry....and used as a evidence of the *evolutionary prediction on vestigial organs.

Was the (incorrect) belief that the appendix had no function arrived at because it was thought to be a vestigial organ?

 

[6days]

Was the (incorrect) belief that the appendix had no function arrived at because it was thought to be a vestigial organ?

is this a chicken or egg question?

You and I both know how Darwin described vestigial. Shortly after that long lists (well over 100) were assembled of body parts that were thought to be biological remnants. The appendix showed up on these lists as a useless organ, and was used to help promote evolutionary beliefs.*

 

[Tyrathca]

is this a chicken or egg question?

You and I both know how Darwin described vestigial. Shortly after that long lists (well over 100) were assembled of body parts that were thought to be biological remnants. The appendix showed up on these lists as a useless organ, and was used to help promote evolutionary beliefs.*

Let's be clear, you think doctors cared what people who hadn't studied the appendix much postulated about the appendix? They didn't just look at appendix gets infected - > appendix come out - > patient has no apparent I'll affects compared to other people with an appendix (except they don't get appendicitis anymore).

You understand doctors even less than you understand scientists.

Fortunately neither doctors or other scientists were wedded to the idea of the appendix being useless and a cornerstone of evolution proof as you claim. That's why they did further research which finally found some benefit, but why would they have researched it if they thought as you claimed they did?

 

[Jose Fly]

You again confuse your beliefs and your intetpretations as science.

You're still not making the slightest bit of sense. What exactly are you referring to as "my beliefs", and earlier as my "religion"?

My comment above was in response to your belief that common ancestry beliefs have contributed to science. The opposite is true. Evolutionism has harmed people and hindered scientific progress.

This is both hilarious and bizarre. Remember, you posted a Livescience article describing how scientists made some new discoveries about the appendix, as a direct result of evolutionary common ancestry between humans and other taxa. The article even included this very clear statement from the researchers, "we're using his [Darwin's] ideas on evolution to do this work".

Yet somehow, you're actually trying to take that and use it as an example of evolutionary common descent not contributing to science. IOW, scientists are saying "We made this discovery under the framework of evolution", you take that and say "See everyone? That shows evolution doesn't contribute to science!"

Absolutely....positively.....bizarre.

Evolutionist and anticreationist, Larru*Witham wrote

Now you're accepting statements from scientists? So you approach statements from scientists the same way you approach science. When they say something you like, you accept it, but when they say something you don't like, you dismiss it.

Confirmation bias

Tweak??? More like chop down.
In 2009, the cover of New Scientist says "Darwin was Wrong...cutting down the tree of life"

And do you remember what that issue was about?

Psuedogenes joins the long list of vanishing proofs and disappointments for evolutionists.

Again you're behaving in such a bizarre manner, it's fascinating to watch. Just like with the appendix example, you're trying to take a discovery made using the framework of evolutionary common ancestry, and use it to make the argument that evolutionary common ancestry doesn't contribute to science.

I mean, let's look at the paper you cited from the journal RNA.

Notice anything right after the introduction section? That's right...there's an entire section entitled "Evolution and the conservation of pseudogenes". The very first paragraph in that section directly states that it is only via evolution that these discoveries are made! I mean...did you even read the paper? Did you see this part...

Pseudogenes gradually accumulate mutations, and the number of mutations can give us an estimate of their age. Fascinatingly, the appearance of Alu elements in Old World primates coincided with the peak of processed pseudogene generation and subsequent radiation of primates ~40 million years ago (Ohshima et al. 2003; Zhang et al. 2003). Conservation of pseudogenes across different species has also been observed. Analysis of the rhesus macaque major histocompatibility complex (MHC) extended class II region revealed two pseudogenes that were found to be homologous to the human HIV TAT-specific factor-1-like and zinc finger-like pseudogenes, which was suggestive of evolutionary conservation (Sudbrak et al. 2003). Investigations by Podlaha and colleagues (Podlaha and Zhang 2004) demonstrated that the Makorin1-p1 pseudogene is conserved across Mus musculus and Mus pahari strains. This prompted a genome-wide survey for pseudogenes conserved between humans and mice in which human pseudogenes, along with their parent genes, were compared with the corresponding mouse orthologues and their pseudogenes (Svensson et al. 2006). Interestingly, many of the pseudogenes examined were found to have very few mutations within the regulatory regions they shared with their parent genes, which might suggest that these regulatory regions are of importance to the pseudogene and that the pseudogene may be functional.​

Do you even understand how that's just a long way of saying "Only through the understanding of evolutionary common ancestry were these discoveries made"?

Do you understand how utterly bizarre it is to see you try and cite this as an example of evolution not contributing to science?

At this point I have to ask, do you just not understand this material, or do you understand it and are trying to argue that it actually means the opposite of what it says?

Oh my.... yet another failed prediction.

Um....no. First, you've already ignored a bunch of questions just from my last post. Second, I said "eventually you will drop out". Let's see how this goes. opcorn:

And trust me, this is one prediction I'd love to be wrong on.

 

[Derf]

I mean, let's look at the paper you cited from the journal RNA.

Notice anything right after the introduction section? That's right...there's an entire section entitled "Evolution and the conservation of pseudogenes". The very first paragraph in that section directly states that it is only via evolution that these discoveries are made! I mean...did you even read the paper? Did you see this part...

Pseudogenes gradually accumulate mutations, and the number of mutations can give us an estimate of their age. Fascinatingly, the appearance of Alu elements in Old World primates coincided with the peak of processed pseudogene generation and subsequent radiation of primates ~40 million years ago (Ohshima et al. 2003; Zhang et al. 2003). Conservation of pseudogenes across different species has also been observed. Analysis of the rhesus macaque major histocompatibility complex (MHC) extended class II region revealed two pseudogenes that were found to be homologous to the human HIV TAT-specific factor-1-like and zinc finger-like pseudogenes, which was suggestive of evolutionary conservation (Sudbrak et al. 2003). Investigations by Podlaha and colleagues (Podlaha and Zhang 2004) demonstrated that the Makorin1-p1 pseudogene is conserved across Mus musculus and Mus pahari strains. This prompted a genome-wide survey for pseudogenes conserved between humans and mice in which human pseudogenes, along with their parent genes, were compared with the corresponding mouse orthologues and their pseudogenes (Svensson et al. 2006). Interestingly, many of the pseudogenes examined were found to have very few mutations within the regulatory regions they shared with their parent genes, which might suggest that these regulatory regions are of importance to the pseudogene and that the pseudogene may be functional.​

Do you even understand how that's just a long way of saying "Only through the understanding of evolutionary common ancestry were these discoveries made"?

Hi Jose,
Just looking at that paragraph, I don't see how most of the discoveries mentioned in that paragraph were made "through the understanding of evolutionary common ancestry" (abbreviated below as TUECA and ECA for the last part). For instance:

• Pseudogenes gradually accumulate mutations This is an observation that doesn't require TUECA, unless it really hasn't been observed, but just postulated from a TUECA perspective
• Analysis of the rhesus macaque major histocompatibility complex (MHC) extended class II region revealed two pseudogenes that were found to be homologous to the human HIV TAT-specific factor-1-like and zinc finger-like pseudogenes This is also an observation not requiring TUECA.
• the Makorin1-p1 pseudogene is conserved across Mus musculus and Mus pahari strains. "is conserved" makes this both an observation and an interpretation. The interpretation, as far as I can tell, assumes TUECA, but the observation doesn't require it, and if ECA is wrong, it makes the "discovery" of less worth than it might have been if unencumbered by the conclusion
• many of the pseudogenes examined were found to have very few mutations within the regulatory regions they shared with their parent genes This also is an observation, not requiring TUECA.

I left one off, namely:

• the appearance of Alu elements in Old World primates coincided with the peak of processed pseudogene generation and subsequent radiation of primates ~40 million years ago

Other people may have a different take on which are "discoveries" mentioned in the paragraph, but I don't see how TUECA is necessary.

Regarding that last one, I'll admit I don't understand how this "discovery", which appears to be more an interpretation of data rather than a discovery, was made. I don't think anyone has analyzed the actual genes from 40 million-year-old creatures in order to determine 1. that Alu elements actually appeared then, or 2. processed pseudo-genes actually appeared then. I agree that this requires ECA, but only to prove ECA, which is circular logic.

If I'm correct in my reading of the paragraph you cited, then it does support 6days' contention--that evolution didn't contribute to science in this particular example, and in fact, if the conclusions are wrong (hard to say yet), they might have actually had a deleterious effect on science. And it seems to refute your contention, that "Only through the understanding of evolutionary common ancestry were these discoveries made", except where the "discoveries" are questionable.

Maybe you got more out of the paragraph than I could see in it.

 

[Yorzhik]

10 or more years ago, a YEC named Enyart teamed up with a high school math teacher in a debate against two OEC professional geologists with advanced degrees. The conduct of that debate was fascinating. One of the old-earth geologists went first, politely explaining why his side held an old-earth view. He mentioned items from geology and from how Genesis can be interpreted. Then Enyart came up, and the tone of the debate altered substantially. It was clear that in Enyart’s view, old-earth and apostate were pretty much equivalent terms, and he went on the attack. Since under the debate format this opening salvo from each side was their primary opportunity to lay out their case, the old-earthers had lost much of their opportunity, and were forced into a defensive posture. They never effectively recovered the advantage, not because they were outclassed scientifically, but their Christianity itself was called into question.

Regarding your claim that YEC debates stick “close to scientific reality”, one of the scientific points Enyart presented was his claim that the vaunted Hubble Deep Field (HDF) photograph had shown that what had been hoped to be lots of early infant galaxies instead showed galaxies no different than are seen typically by telescopes. The OEC scientists had no reply to that claim.

As it turns out, the claim that HDF shows just “normal galaxies” was one Enyart had effectively used several times in earlier encounters and debates. However, Enyart’s success in using that claim was not because he was right (he was flatly wrong), but simply because most people were not aware of the HDF at all.

My point is that truth is not always what is presented in a debate. Falsehoods born of Ignorance, as shown in Enyart’s ignorance of what the HDF actually showed, can be as effective in apparently “winning a debate” as pure truth can.

Had both sides in the YEC-OEC debate instead had their points presented to qualified scientists to evaluate in depth away from the pressures of responding in front of an audience, then there would have been a huge difference in the outcome of that age-of-the-earth debate.

Creationist debates are loved by those who know they cannot hold their own when science is given the opportunity to methodically do its job.

That's not quite accurate. There are about 3000 objects in those HDF pictures, and it would not be hard to label them. But you cannot find the information that labels each object. That is because there are a lot of discrepancies that don't follow the common descent narrative. Same as radiometric dating, any awkward information for the common descentists is glossed over. Don't believe me? Just find the link that labels everything in those pictures in laymen's terms instead of raw data.